DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0052, line 8, “sensor SS” should read “sensor S3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11-12, “electrolyzers and adjust…water and adjust” should read “electrolyzers, adjust…water, and adjust”
In claim 8, line 2, “m/s the” should read “m/s, and the”.
In claim 11, line 6, “water so that:” should read something like “water, and:” for grammatical sense.
In claim 18, lines 4-5, “house and adjust…electrolyzers and adjust” should read “house, adjust…electrolyzers, and adjust”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrolyzer house conduit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of an “electrolyzer house conduit”. The limitation of “an electrolyzer house bypass conduit” is previously introduced in line 7, but the later “conduit” recitation is described as being bypassed to be output to this “bypass conduit” and is therefore apparently separate.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electrolyzer house conduit" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of simply an “electrolyzer house conduit”. The limitation of “an electrolyzer house bypass conduit” is separately introduced in line 7 of claim 1 and line 4 of claim 2, and the limitation of “an electrolyzer house feed conduit” is introduced in line 2 of claim 2. It is therefore unclear what individual “electrolyzer house conduit” is being referred to in the later recitation of claim 2. For examination purposes, this has been interpreted to refer to the feed conduit.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 describes the apparatus comprising the electrolyzer house. The “electrolyzer house” is already introduced as a limitation in line 4 of claim 1. Claim 9 therefore fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allebrod et al. (DE 102017108427 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 1, Allebrod discloses an apparatus to control providing of purified water for hydrogen production (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004-0005, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6, electrochemical device in which treated fluid, i.e. purified water, is supplied for splitting into hydrogen and oxygen) comprising:
a polisher positioned to purify a feed of water from a water demineralization unit for outputting a purified feed of water having a pre-selected level of purity for feeding to electrolyzers of an electrolyzer house for generation of hydrogen via electrolysis (see e.g. Fig. 1, particle filter 28, i.e. polisher, receiving fluid from desalination, i.e. demineralization, unit 26 to provide water of a specified conductivity, i.e. purity, to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 for splitting to form hydrogen; Paragraphs 0038, 0042 and 0046, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6);
the polisher positioned and arranged such that a first portion of the purified feed of water outputtable from the polisher is feedable to the electrolyzers and a second portion of the purified feed of water is outputtable to an electrolyzer house bypass conduit to bypass the electrolyzer house conduit and feed the second portion of the purified water to the water demineralization unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, path 30 from particle filter 28 split between inlet 44 into cell unit 12, i.e. as first portion, and bypass path 36 which returns via closed fluid circuit 42 to desalination unit 26, i.e. as second portion; Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, Paragraph 0040, lines 6-8, and Paragraphs 0043 and 0050); and
a water purification control system configured to determine a demand for purified water at the electrolyzers, adjust a proportion of the purified feed of water output from the polisher that is included in the first portion of the purified feed of water and adjust a proportion of the purified feed of water output from the polisher that is included in the second portion of the purified feed of water so that a flow of water passed through the polisher is at or above a pre-selected minimum flow and the flow of water passed through the polisher is at or below a pre-selected maximum flow while also feeding sufficient purified water to the electrolyzers to meet the determined demand for the purified water (see e.g. Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 for determining operating setpoint, including desired flow rate of fluid, for cell unit 12, and adjusting said flow rate by adjusting a proportion of supplied fluid from the particle filter 28 through bypass path 36 vs through the cell unit 12, the total flow through the fluid supply 18 and thereby filter 28 being continuously supplied at a particular high level, i.e. between a given max and min; Paragraphs 0047 and 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 2, Allebrod discloses an electrolyzer house feed conduit connected between the electrolyzers and the polisher to receive the first portion of the purified feed of water (see e.g. Fig. 1, inlet 44 receiving fluid supply from particle filter 28 into cell unit 12 via conduit path 30; Paragraph 0040, lines 6-8, and Paragraph 0043); and an electrolyzer house bypass conduit connected between the water demineralization unit and the polisher to receive the second portion of the purified feed of water to bypass the electrolyzer house conduit and feed the second portion to the water demineralization unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, bypass path receiving fluid supply from particle filter 28 into cell unit 12 via conduit path 30; Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Allebrod discloses an adjustable valve connected to the electrolyzer house bypass conduit (see e.g. Fig. 1, proportional, i.e. adjustable, switching valves 48,50; Paragraph 0050, lines 4-11).
Regarding claim 9, Allebrod discloses the apparatus comprising the electrolyzer house (see e.g. Fig. 1, cell unit 12 formed by electrolysis cell stack 40; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 11, Allebrod discloses a process to control providing of purified water for hydrogen production (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0049, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6, control of supply of treated fluid, i.e. purified water, electrochemical device for splitting into hydrogen and oxygen), the process comprising:
feeding water to a polisher for purification of the water to form purified water for feeding to electrolyzers of an electrolyzer house for formation of hydrogen from the purified water via electrolysis (see e.g. Fig. 1, particle filter 28, i.e. polisher, receiving fluid from desalination, i.e. demineralization, unit 26 to provide purified water to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 for splitting to form hydrogen; Paragraphs 0038, 0042 and 0046, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6);
determining electrolyzer demand for the purified water (see e.g. Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 for determining operating setpoint, including desired flow rate of fluid, for cell unit 12; Paragraphs 0047 and 0049), and:
in response to detection of a first pre-selected level of electrolyzer demand for the purified water, feeding an entirety of the purified water output from the polisher to the electrolyzer house for feeding to the electrolyzers (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such total flow of fluid is through cell unit 12; Paragraph 0013, lines 7-9, Paragraph 0027, lines 15-18, Paragraph 0049);
in response to detection of a second pre-selected level of electrolyzer demand for the purified water, feeding a first portion of the purified water output from the polisher to the electrolyzer house for feeding to the electrolyzers and feeding a second portion of the purified water output from the polisher to an electrolyzer house bypass conduit to feed the purified water to a water demineralization unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that flow through cell unit 12 is reduced and part of the fluid is routed through bypass path 36 and thereby back to desalination unit 26; Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 12-18); and
in response to detection of a third pre-selected level of electrolyzer demand for the purified water, passing the purified water output from the polisher to the water demineralization unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that total fluid flow goes through bypass path 36 and thereby back to desalination unit 26 while cell unit flow rate is zero; Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 12-15).
Regarding claim 13, Allebrod discloses forming hydrogen from the purified water fed to the electrolyzers via electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6).
Regarding claims 14-15, Allebrod discloses the determining of the electrolyzer demand for the purified water being based on: (i) loading feedback from the electrolyzers (see e.g. Paragraph 0025, lines 1-8, cell unit operating state determined based on parameter such as individual cell power, i.e. loading).
Regarding claim 17, Allebrod discloses the passing of the purified water output from the polisher to the water demineralization unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers comprising passing a portion of the purified water output from the polisher to an electrolyzer house bypass conduit to feed the portion of the purified water to the water demineralization unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that total fluid flow goes through bypass path 36 and thereby back to desalination unit 26 while cell unit flow rate is zero; Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 12-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Yoshida (U.S. 2024/0141522).
Regarding claim 4, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 2 as stated above. Allebrod does not teach a recycle conduit connected to the electrolyzer house feed conduit so that a pressure head maintenance bypass portion of the first portion of the purified feed is passable to the water demineralization unit after bypassing the electrolyzers to maintain a pressure head for the electrolyzers.
Yoshida teaches a water electrolysis system (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a bypass flow path is connected to oxygen side inlet and outlet flow paths for a water electrolysis stack such that reaction water bypasses the stack to return to a water supply device (see e.g. Fig. 3, Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6, Paragraph 0037, lines 7-13 and 21-25, and Paragraph 0040, lines 4-11), allowing pressure at the oxygen side of the stack to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side once activated, i.e. maintain a pressure head, and thereby preventing formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004, 0007 and 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Allebrod to comprise an additional bypass flow path that bypasses the electrolyzer house on an oxygen side to join the supply path returning, i.e. being recycled, to the water demineralization unit as taught by Yoshida to allow pressure at the oxygen side of the electrolyzers to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side once activated, i.e. maintain a pressure head, and thereby prevent formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential.
Regarding claim 5, Allebrod as modified by Yoshida teaches an adjustable valve connected to the recycle conduit (see e.g. Yoshida Fig. 3, flow control valve in bypass flow path with controllable opening and closing; Paragraph 0033, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 6, modified Allebrod teaches an adjustable valve connected to the electrolyzer house bypass conduit and the electrolyzer house feed conduit (see e.g. Allebrod Fig. 1, proportional, i.e. adjustable, switching valve 48 connected to bypass path 36 and inlet 44; Paragraph 0050, lines 4-11).
Regarding claim 12, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the method of claim 11 as stated above. Allebrod further teaches the passing of the purified water output from the polisher to the water demineralization unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers comprising passing a portion of the purified water output from the polisher to an electrolyzer house bypass conduit to feed the second portion of the purified water to the water demineralization unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that total fluid flow goes through bypass path 36 and thereby back to desalination unit 26 while cell unit flow rate is zero; Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 12-15).
Allebrod does not teach the passing of the purified water output from the polisher to the water demineralization unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers comprising passing a first portion of the purified water output from the polisher to an electrolyzer house feed conduit for maintaining a pressure head for feeding water to the electrolyzers and being recycled back to the water demineralization unit. Allebrod does however teach startup being one of the operating states during which the electrolyzers may be completely bypassed (see e.g. Paragraph 0026, lines 4-7, flow rate through cell unit set to zero during startup).
Yoshida teaches a water electrolysis system (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a bypass flow path is connected to oxygen side inlet and outlet flow paths for a water electrolysis stack such that reaction water bypasses the stack to return to a water supply device (see e.g. Fig. 3, Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6, Paragraph 0037, lines 7-13 and 21-25, and Paragraph 0040, lines 4-11), allowing pressure at the oxygen side of the stack to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side, i.e. maintain a pressure head, once activated, i.e. during startup, and thereby preventing formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004, 0007 and 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Allebrod to comprise passing a portion of the purified water through an additional bypass flow path that bypasses the electrolyzer house on an oxygen side to join the supply path returning, i.e. being recycled, to the water demineralization unit as taught by Yoshida to allow pressure at the oxygen side of the electrolyzers to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side, i.e. maintain a pressure head, once activated, i.e. during startup, and thereby prevent formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Yoshida, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Neubert et al. (U.S. 2010/0187128), and further in view of Puyenchet et al. (FR 2927907 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 6 as stated above. Modified Allebrod further teaches the water purification control system including a controller (see e.g. Allebrod Fig. 1, control/regulating unit 46; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2).
Modified Allebrod does not teach the water purification control system including an electrolyzer house feed conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of purified water fed to the electrolyzer house that is communicatively connectable to the controller; an electrolyzer house bypass conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of purified water passed through the electrolyzer house bypass conduit; and. Allebrod does however teach the respective flow rates through the electrolyzer house feed conduit and electrolyzer house bypass conduit being controlled/regulated by controllable valves (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 4-16)
Neubert teaches a method and device for water electrolysis (see e.g. Abstract) in which a water is sent through a feed line to an electrolysis unit at a chosen quantity by adjustment with a flow meter measuring the quantity, i.e. flow rate, in accordance with regulation by a control valve (see e.g. Paragraph 0065, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Allebrod to comprise a flow meter, i.e. flow rate sensor, in each of the electrolyzer feed and electrolyzer bypass conduit in addition to the controllable valves as taught by Neubert to facilitate adjustment and regulation of flow to be provided at a desired chosen quantity/rate in a path of an electrolysis device. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Allebrod does not teach the water purification control system including a polisher feed conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of water fed to the polisher for purification.
Puyenchet teaches an installation for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water (see e.g. Page 1, 1st paragraph, lines 1-2), comprising a final water purification unit, i.e. a polisher, for delivering purified water to an electrolysis stack (see e.g. Fig. 1a, purification unit 11 upstream of electrolysis stack 4; Page 2, 5th paragraph, lines 1-3, and Page 4, paragraph starting “The gases…”, lines 1-4), wherein a flow sensor may by mounted on an inlet leading into the purification unit to check the water supply to the stack (see e.g. Fig. 1a, flow sensor 13 on water circuit leading into purification unit 11; Page 5, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Allebrod to comprise a flow sensor mounted on a polisher geed conduit for measuring a flow rate into the polisher as taught by Puyenchet to assist in checking the water supply to be delivered to the electrolyzers. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Gregorich et al. (U.S. 2022/0144679).
Regarding claim 8, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Allebrod does not teach the pre-selected minimum flow being a velocity of 0.6 m/s, and the pre-selected maximum flow being a velocity that is no greater than 4 m/s, but does teach the polisher comprising a microfilter and/or ultrafilter (see e.g. Paragraph 0042).
Gregorich teaches a water treatment system including an ultrafiltration membrane (see e.g. Abstract), wherein an effluent to be treated may be passed through the ultrafiltration membrane at a velocity within a range between approximately 0.5 m/s and 5 m/s, or more narrowly between values such as approximately 0.75 m/s and 4 m/s (see e.g. Paragraph 0045, lines 1-5 and 9-17), overlapping or closely encompassing the claimed range of the present invention, this velocity range enabling continuous and efficient separation, i.e. purification, and increasing the operating duration of the ultrafiltration membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0045, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Allebrod to have the flow through the ultrafilter polisher be maintained in a range of between approximately 0.5 m/s and 5 m/s, or more narrowly 0.75 m/s and 4 m/s, as taught by Gregorich to enable continuous and efficient separation, i.e. purification, and increase the operating duration of the ultrafiltration membrane. MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod.
Regarding claim 10, Allebrod teaches the polisher is positioned such that piping for feeding the water from the water demineralization unit to the electrolyzer house is arranged so that there is a ratio of up to approximately 3:1 of a piping distance between the polisher and the water demineralization unit as compared to a piping distance between the polisher and the electrolyzer house (see e.g. Fig. 1, all elements of fluid quality unit 22, including particle filter 28 and desalination unit 26, being advantageously at most 2 m away from cell unit 12, the particle filter 28 exemplified as about 0.5 m away, while the desalination unit 26 is upstream, resulting in ratio of up to about 1.5:0.5, i.e. 3:1; Paragraph 0040, lines 6-10, and Paragraphs 0041-0043), overlapping the claimed range (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Park et al. (KR 102413307 B1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 16, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the method of claim 11 as stated above. Allebrod does not explicitly teach adjusting a flow of water being fed to the polisher in response to the determined electrolyzer demand for the purified water, but does teach the polisher being an ultrafilter/microfilter (see e.g. Paragraph 0042), as well as the determined electrolyzer demand corresponding to a change in electrolyzer operating current (see e.g. Paragraph 0025, operating power/current of cell unit controlled/regulated based on monitored operating state/parameter).
Park teaches a hydrogen generation device for producing hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001 and 0002) comprising a DI filter for providing ultrapure water to a decomposition cell for performing the electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraphs 0022-0024), wherein a flow rate of water to be received by the decomposition cell through the DI filter is controlled by a water flow control valve according to the amount of current in the cell, and corresponding amount of hydrogen and oxygen generated, to prevent oxygen and hydrogen generation from being inconsistent due to irregular water inflow, while preventing excess water flow into the decomposition cell (see e.g. Paragraphs 0024-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Allebrod to comprise adjusting the flow rate of water being fed to the polisher in response to the determine electrolyzer demand, and corresponding current, as taught by Park to prevent oxygen and hydrogen generation from being inconsistent due to irregular water inflow, while preventing excess water flow into the electrolyzers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Ballantine et al. (U.S. 2021/0179451).
Regarding claim 18, Allebrod teaches a controller having a processor (see e.g. Paragraph 0044, lines 12-15, control/regulation unit having computing unit for processing), the controller configured to determine a demand for purified water at electrolyzers of an electrolyzer house (see e.g. Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 for determining operating setpoint, including desired flow rate of fluid, for cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 of electrolysis stack 40; Paragraphs 0038, 0047 and 0049), adjust a proportion of purified water output from a polisher that is included in a first portion of the purified water fed to the electrolyzers, and adjust a proportion of the purified water output from the polisher that is included in a second portion of the purified water to bypass the electrolyzers so that a flow of water passed through the polisher to purify the water is at or above a pre-selected minimum flow and the flow of water passed through the polisher is at or below a pre-selected maximum flow (see e.g. Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 adjusting said flow rate by adjusting a proportion of supplied fluid from the particle filter 28 through bypass path 36 vs through the cell unit 12, the total flow through the fluid supply 18 and thereby filter 28 being continuously supplied at a particular high level, i.e. between a given max and min; Paragraphs 0049-0051).
Allebrod does not explicitly teach the controller having a non-transitory computer readable medium connected to the processor, but does teach it containing stored data (see e.g. Paragraph 0047, lines 10-15).
Ballantine teaches a method for providing purified water to an electrolyzer (see e.g. Abstract) in which a controller is provided including a processing unit and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions for causing the processing unit to carry out the method (see e.g. Fig. 1A, controller 144 with processing unit 146 and storage media 148; Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Allebrod to further comprise a non-transitory computer readable storage medium connected to the processor as taught by Ballantine as a suitable means of storing the desired data that also assists the processor in carrying out its desired operation. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Ballantine, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Neubert.
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Allebrod teaches all the elements of the control system of claim 18 as stated above. Modified Allebrod further teaches a plurality of sensors communicatively connected to the controller (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraph 0044, at least one fluid quality sensor connected to control/regulation unit of monitoring unit).
Modified Allebrod does not teach the sensors including (i) an electrolyzer house bypass conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of purified water passed through an electrolyzer house bypass conduit; (ii) a polisher feed sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of water being fed to the polisher; (iii) a recycle conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of water being passed through a recycle conduit; and/or (iv) an electrolyzer house feed conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of water being passed through an electrolyzer house feed conduit for feeding to the electrolyzers. Allebrod does however teach the respective flow rates through the electrolyzer house feed conduit and electrolyzer house bypass conduit being controlled/regulated by controllable valves (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 4-16)
Neubert teaches a method and device for water electrolysis (see e.g. Abstract) in which a water is sent through a feed line to an electrolysis unit at a chosen quantity by adjustment with a flow meter measuring the quantity, i.e. flow rate, in accordance with regulation by a control valve (see e.g. Paragraph 0065, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Allebrod to comprise a flow meter, i.e. flow rate sensor, in the electrolyzer feed and/or electrolyzer bypass conduits in addition to the controllable valves as taught by Neubert to facilitate adjustment and regulation of flow to be provided at a desired chosen quantity/rate in a path of an electrolysis device. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights